Ming Flanagan's cannabis legalisation bill

Dave!

Hi there,

I see the debate on Ming's cannabis bill has begun.

Pretty negative reaction so far from the major parties:

Fianna Fáil’s Niall Collins said the damage that legislating cannabis “would inflict upon innumerable people across the county is a breach of that duty”.
“Our time here is better spent focusing on the draconian budget introduced only weeks ago that will severely impact upon the young and old in Irish society,” he said. “This attempt to liberalise drug use is a deeply flawed view of what the common good is.”
“Deputy Flanagan’s misguided enthusiasm for this project down through the years belies the all too real dangers of cannabis,” the Fianna Fáil TD commented.

Minister for State Alex White spoke of the “devastating effects” of drugs on families and communities and said that while he had no objection to a debate on the topic, the government would not be supporting Flanagan’s motion.

I guess it's to be expected - while the international tide appears to be going in the direction of legalisation (most notably in the US), the notion has never warranted any serious discussion in this country. It has always just been seen as a slightly quaint obsession that eccentric Ming has championed over the years.

Is there any hope of it getting passed, no?

circadian

Probably not, our government tends to be very conservative.

I would welcome a discussion on changing the criminality of its use, it's my understanding that there can be heavy enough penalties for personal use.

Drexel

There is no way its goina be legalised but there should be something done for people caught with small amounts. It seems like such a waste of time arresting people and bringing them through the courts for personal use. Maybe something like the English tried a few years back. Think they took the persons name and took their smoke off em.

I like to be allowed maybe to pay some sort of license fee to grow a plant or two at home.

seamus

The house will be unable to debate the bill on its merits and instead will talk vague rhetoric about the scourge of drugs and the erosion of the common good.

Most of the TDs don't understand the purpose of debate and have already made their minds up before they read the bill. So there's no way in hell this is getting through.

But it's important that this is finally being debated in a formal manner on the basis of a well drafted and sensible bill. It will come up again and again and each time the support for it will grow little by little.

Cookie_Monster

Independent TD Luke "Ming" Flanagan has threatened to inform gardai of any TDs who have indulged in “previous activity”, in a debate over the legalisation of cannabis in the Dail.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/luke-ming-flanagan-says-he-will-report-tds-who-have-used-cannabis-29731800.html

Why any TD would even bother to listen to him if he pulls stunts like this is beyond me. How hypocritical can one be?

gizmo555

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/luke-ming-flanagan-says-he-will-report-tds-who-have-used-cannabis-29731800.html

Why any TD would even bother to listen to him if he pulls stunts like this is beyond me. How hypocritical can one be?

I think you're missing Ming's point. He was highlighting the hypocrisy as he sees it of TDs who acquiesce in the criminalisation of drugs which they themselves use.

Anyway, the US which was one of the first countries to ban cannabis looks set to be the first to legalize it. I imagine the rest of the developed world will follow its lead in due course.

whippet

In fairness ming could be arguing against the making of drinking water for children illegal and still come across as someone you would disagree with.

even mentioning 'Nidge' in the debate just shows how poor he is at making a point. The guy is a circus act when he could be somewhat interesting.

The threat of informing the guards is a child like attempt of bribery and further diminishes his limited credibility.

RichardAnd

jonny666 wrote: »

There is no way its goina be legalised but there should be something done for people caught with small amounts. It seems like such a waste of time arresting people and bringing them through the courts for personal use. Maybe something like the English tried a few years back. Think they took the persons name and took their smoke off em.

Guards here sometimes do just confiscate weed and leave it at that. I've little doubt as to where that weed ends up...

Manach

Well, Mr. Flanagan has at least the crux of argument on the path to de-radicalisation of what was not acceptable being mooted. However, given the social cost of drug use in the UK and the steps the state is bringing in to handle the traditional addictions of alcohol, hopefully the bill is stonewalled.

Manach

Manach wrote: »

Well, Mr. Flanagan has at least the crux of argument on the path to de-radicalisation of what was not acceptable being mooted. However, given the social cost of drug use in the UK and the steps the state is bringing in to handle the traditional addictions of alcohol, hopefully the bill is stonewalled.

You see thats the problem right there, it's not a drug in the normal sense. Anyone with experience knows this.

If you're calling Cannabis a drug, then you HAVE to call Alcohol a drug.
And realistically then you couldn't put them side by side, as one fills out courts/hospitals and homeless shelters and the other doesn't.

hfallada

I dont think anything proposed by Ming Flanaghan will be taken seriously regardless of what it is. In the US, they have acknowledged that prohibition of the drug hasnt worked and its the same here. But a 60 something TD from the country has probably never heard or seen anyone smoking cannabis. He/She probably sees it just as bad as crystal meth, even through they couldnt be anymore different.

I cant understand how TDs view cannabis are destructive and a threat to society. But yet bringe drinking causes a greater issues in the health system. Take ecstasy,where no a single person has died from an OD. They may die from other stuff mixed with it or dehydration. Whereas you drink too much alcohol and you liver is destroyed. But yet alcohol is legal

RichardAnd

hfallada wrote: »

I cant understand how TDs view cannabis are destructive and a threat to society. But yet bringe drinking causes a greater issues in the health system. Take ecstasy,where no a single person has died from an OD. They may die from other stuff mixed with it or dehydration. Whereas you drink too much alcohol and you liver is destroyed. But yet alcohol is legal

Well said. When someone is stoned, they're relaxed and chilled. When someone is inebriated, they are unpredictable, often violent and certainly a danger to themselves and to others. Weed, to a point, can also act as a mental stimulant whereas alcohol simple makes a person stupid. That's probably why it's illegal. We can't have a large number of people thinking now, can we?

professore

whippet wrote: »

In fairness ming could be arguing against the making of drinking water for children illegal and still come across as someone you would disagree with.

even mentioning 'Nidge' in the debate just shows how poor he is at making a point. The guy is a circus act when he could be somewhat interesting.

The threat of informing the guards is a child like attempt of bribery and further diminishes his limited credibility.

As opposed to who? I find him way better at making his point than 99% of the others in there. Listening to most of them rambling on endlessly puts me off, especially the latest crop of FF'ers, they haven't a brain cell between them.

whippet

professore wrote: »

As opposed to who? I find him way better at making his point than 99% of the others in there. Listening to most of them rambling on endlessly puts me off, especially the latest crop of FF'ers, they haven't a brain cell between them.

I haven't compared him to anyone ... Mak

whippet

professore wrote: »

As opposed to who? I find him way better at making his point than 99% of the others in there. Listening to most of them rambling on endlessly puts me off, especially the latest crop of FF'ers, they haven't a brain cell between them.

I haven't compared him to anyone ... Just taking his contribution on its own merits

seamus

Luke Flanagan is one of those people who builds a great case, and initially does a good job of presenting it, but ultimately fails in the delivery by making poor analogies or threatening his opponents with the Gardai.

What he needs is a frontman who can take his case and his evidence and deliver it in a way that leaves the opponents little room to argue with it. I have seen and heard people say that they don't like this bill just because Luke Flanagan presented it. When you're dealing with monumental levels of ignorance like that, it should be easy to nail them to the wall and make them look foolish. But Luke lacks the clear head and wit to do that.

He needs to do what the rest of them do. Hire a speech writer, and public speaking coach and get lessons from a debating society. Cannabis should in theory be an easy presentation because the negatives thing about cannabis are all based in ignorant stereotypes, they don't actually exist. It's all about the skill of the presenter.

P_1

That's actually a very good point seamus. Unfortunately Flanagan doesn't look or sound like the majority of the other TDs which Id have to believe tends to hamstring any argument that he makes